The Argument for Accessibility

The common mistake I made as a student was assuming that creating an accessible design was pointless. “When am I ever going to have a blind user?” and at work – “I’ve never heard of a blind farmer/rancher!”

In reality, the problem with most arguments against accessibility stems from 1) laziness on part of the designer and 2) interpreting accessibility as ‘building for the blind.’

Who are ‘the disabled?’ And why should I be concerned with building an accessible site? Disabilities come in a wide array: blindness is the most commonly associated word with the topic of accessibility. However, there are other cases to consider: color blindness, low vision and astigmatism are a few physical disabilities. What about technical disabilities, such as using a javascript-disabled or an image-disabled browser? What happens when a screen reader tries to use the site? Many designers may not browse the web using a text-only browser, but a designer’s job is not to design for themselves. It is our responsibility to design for the users, and there is a high probability that users have astigmatism (I do), are color blind, or turn off images to speed up download time on slower connections.

A Blue Flavored Blog discusses why building two sites (one accessible, one not) is not a good substitute for one fully accessible site.

A List Apart talks about the Search Engine Optimization advantages of creating an accessible site.

In an effort to create more accessible sites, I am making the long, scary journey out of tables and venturing into CSS layouts. A few of the current sites I’ve designed that could benefit greatly from this include: Blackstreet Angus and J Bar 7 Ranch. I did not design TC Ranch, but it looks like an excellent candidate for CSS, considering its current layout.